From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: emacs-29 9b775ddc057 1/2: ; * etc/EGLOT-NEWS: Fix wording of last change. Date: Sat, 06 May 2023 22:38:52 +0300 Message-ID: <834jopfdwz.fsf@gnu.org> References: <168335548287.8529.4912240840977468283@vcs2.savannah.gnu.org> <20230506064443.56C75C22F15@vcs2.savannah.gnu.org> <59835735-faa0-4096-e491-35ec92964b7a@gutov.dev> <831qjthhm8.fsf@gnu.org> <715cdac6-83f6-6907-2ff8-3b33381f3487@gutov.dev> <83zg6hg29c.fsf@gnu.org> <83ttwpfvcr.fsf@gnu.org> <83h6spfose.fsf@gnu.org> <35df1362-fd92-9424-97d0-df3479414677@gutov.dev> <83edntfm6e.fsf@gnu.org> <667d5cc1-4a3c-5cd4-21c0-adff89cea769@gutov.dev> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="40955"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: philipk@posteo.net, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Dmitry Gutov Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat May 06 21:38:55 2023 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1pvNk7-000AOQ-3E for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 06 May 2023 21:38:55 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pvNjC-0003wZ-JE; Sat, 06 May 2023 15:37:58 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pvNjA-0003w5-VJ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 06 May 2023 15:37:56 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pvNjA-0004ku-2u; Sat, 06 May 2023 15:37:56 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=qEdOyhRCoRk6ynPIiTdSH9TubsjUPxv8JAyu282IJPk=; b=QqbJFlhAtn4x YLgPDcESkN3NNlIiRfTErylfyhC1CHVA2z8xA6xxIZwtj12SGXUDZH4G8liSm9zuUr2frIn5mG6Hw jTjfuyxk7WD3RH+E1+ar880PDng19oOD9w6s6AMozwvK9m5vUCMvqcvDqNT+Fs4il4eeQ0/4DixhT gBLjpp7uxy9uH8aq8OV6LEMuiy99xCdt1NkNEbqPaRb61aDttTROkIxoHoC1D2l7hMYEycQ4MroVi njnKw549lkQZnYgob94wKdPnwoPZFoMFwOC6wHbQ9Km2n9o7imR94JCR8mLUAGYE6iDZiJis+ZKtY Duelsw+ARGuaX7J7PWrRYw==; Original-Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pvNj9-0004ku-J0; Sat, 06 May 2023 15:37:55 -0400 In-Reply-To: <667d5cc1-4a3c-5cd4-21c0-adff89cea769@gutov.dev> (message from Dmitry Gutov on Sat, 6 May 2023 22:14:13 +0300) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:305934 Archived-At: > Date: Sat, 6 May 2023 22:14:13 +0300 > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > From: Dmitry Gutov > > > What about installation from the list-packages menu: will it upgrade a > > built-in package if package-install-upgrade-built-in is non-nil? > > Installation or upgrade? > > package-menu-mark-upgrades ('U') is not affected by > package-install-upgrade-built-in. It won't. Shouldn't it? > But a version from ELPA can still be installed by using 'i' in the > list-packages menu. Just as we've written in the docstrings. That was stated at the very beginning of bug#62720. > > If package-upgrade was not in Emacs 28, how did users upgrade > > installed packages in Emacs 28 and before? > > Using package-menu-mark-upgrades ('U'). So we should allow that, at least as an optional behavior in Emacs 29, right? > We should probably focus on getting Emacs 29 out soon Why do you think this is not what happens?